Eastern Delight?

[Sriram]

It's not at all the same Sriram. Last time I checked on my cousins to the south, there was a black fella in the oval office, they have had a black secretary of state and the latest Muslim terrorist attacker lived in a home with a swimming pool. Look at their Supreme court justices and you are going to find an African American. Canada has even had a Black Governor General. Your untouchables live in fear and are stuck a society that forces them to survive by doing the most menial jobs. You will never have an untouchable in a position of power. Go and convince the 160,000,000 million untouchables that they are living an eastern delight.

Well Johnny....as Udayana has pointed out. India has had one dalit president (KR Narayanan -1997-2002) already, many muslim presidents, one woman president. 

One women prime minister (even before UK) for 16 long years - Indira Gandhi.   Many chief ministers of states are dalits and from the lower castes.

Brahmins are probably one of the poorest sections, though normally well educated. (Brahmins were always one of the poorest groups because they were never expected to amass wealth).  Nowadays brahmins are employed mainly as scientists or as doctors and bureaucrats. Most science Nobel laureates from India (or of Indian origin) are Tamil brahmins. 

You have no idea how many quotas and concessions have been given to the lower castes since independence! In one state 67% had been allotted to them!! They occupy many important positions today in all sections of society....including Govt. and industry.

So...take it easy!   

[Jack Knave]

Something I read recently which implied that the East, over the last coupler thousand years or so has been more open and less prudish about sex etc. than the Occidental, with its repressed attitudes as conveyed in religion especially the historical one of Christianity.

Can anyone confirm or rebuke this general notion?

In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.

Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree.  Some people can be vastly different from some others.  Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life.  The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.

So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.

Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin.  Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin. 

While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans.  The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex.  Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.

The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.

There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable.  This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.

The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism.  Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life.  But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures.

Thank you for that. So I take it from this that all this was public knowledge, out in the open. The difference with Western culture over the ages, as it seems to me, was that similar conduct was engaged in but it was done surreptitiously and away from the judgement of the perceived norms and morals of the collective psyche and as such was a repressed attitude. And which only in recent history has it been relaxed and taken into the collective society as a whole.

[Sriram]

Discrimination? The street cleaner with 4 degrees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-33859315

Despite positive discrimination schemes and so on there are no simple solutions to issues originating in the caste system.

Modi does not seem to be making much of an impact.

On the sexual front there has been a lot of confused activity on pornography. Dowry crime, rape, child sexual exploitation etc are still major issues.

It is a big place with a lot going on, you can feel hope but there is a lot to despair and condemn.

What has the street cleaners position got to do with caste? How many brahmins do you want who have degrees but who don't have a job? Do you know how many poor brahmin men and women work as maids and cooks with a meager income?   

As I said above...its all about negative publicity.  One low caste person with a degree and without a job.... and its discrimination?!!   

There must be many blacks in the UK and US with degrees and without jobs...is it all because of discrimination? We have heard  that many blacks are overlooked for jobs they are qualified for....while whites are chosen. 

[Sriram]

In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.

Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree.  Some people can be vastly different from some others.  Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life.  The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.

So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.

Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin.  Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin. 

While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans.  The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex.  Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.

The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.

There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable.  This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.

The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism.  Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life.  But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures.

Thank you for that. So I take it from this that all this was public knowledge, out in the open. The difference with Western culture over the ages, as it seems to me, was that similar conduct was engaged in but it was done surreptitiously and away from the judgement of the perceived norms and morals of the collective psyche and as such was a repressed attitude. And which only in recent history has it been relaxed and taken into the collective society as a whole.

The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes).   The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%. 

So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way.  As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.

The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow. 

 

[Jack Knave]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.

That's a laugh. Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations!

And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.

Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.

AO's point was about the origins of all this. The pagans were seen as wild and out of control in their conduct, say in their rituals etc. Christianity took a more civilised 'Greek' approach as percolated through the Rome world through its philosophy etc. But of course many individuals within that system fail.

[Hope]

No Jesus doesn't describe himself as perfect either, in fact that bit where he says " only God is good" implies he saw himself as imperfect.

Perhaps you would do a piece of literary criticism on the passage and its context to prove that what you suggest is true, Rose.  It comes in Luke 18.  I'll be interested to see it when you are done.

[Jack Knave]

In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.

Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree.  Some people can be vastly different from some others.  Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life.  The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.

So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.

Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin.  Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin. 

While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans.  The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex.  Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.

The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.

There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable.  This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.

The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism.  Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life.  But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures.

Thank you for that. So I take it from this that all this was public knowledge, out in the open. The difference with Western culture over the ages, as it seems to me, was that similar conduct was engaged in but it was done surreptitiously and away from the judgement of the perceived norms and morals of the collective psyche and as such was a repressed attitude. And which only in recent history has it been relaxed and taken into the collective society as a whole.

The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes).   The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%. 

So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way.  As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.

The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow.

My OP was about a general comment of East and West over the many millennia. Today we have the mix of many ideas because of colonization and our ability in the relative recent past to travel around the world sharing and influencing each others cultures. What is seen to be going on today in various regions will be an amalgam of their history and will not be applicable to the OP's aims.

[Udayana]

Discrimination? The street cleaner with 4 degrees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-33859315

Despite positive discrimination schemes and so on there are no simple solutions to issues originating in the caste system.

Modi does not seem to be making much of an impact.

On the sexual front there has been a lot of confused activity on pornography. Dowry crime, rape, child sexual exploitation etc are still major issues.

It is a big place with a lot going on, you can feel hope but there is a lot to despair and condemn.

What has the street cleaners position got to do with caste? How many brahmins do you want who have degrees but who don't have a job? Do you know how many poor brahmin men and women work as maids and cooks with a meager income?   

As I said above...its all about negative publicity.  One low caste person with a degree and without a job.... and its discrimination?!!   

There must be many blacks in the UK and US with degrees and without jobs...is it all because of discrimination? We have heard  that many blacks are overlooked for jobs they are qualified for....while whites are chosen.

OK, it is too much to deduce from a single case without knowing the facts fully, but such a case in the UK would probably end up being judged by an employment tribunal.

We judge discrimination from statistics, and there is still plenty of discrimination in the UK, USA based on colour or race as well as gender, disability and sexual orientation.

[Udayana]

...
The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes).   The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%. 

So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way.  As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.

The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow.

Well the liberal attitudes were gone a long time ago, mostly by the 15th century. Bosoms are now rarely seen in public where, even 50 years ago, breastfeeding in public was not an issue. These days India and really all of the East can only be described as repressed and more puritanical than the West.

[Sriram]

...
The funniest thing is that in spite of so much of kamasutra and sexual allowance given to certain sections (many state ministers have had two or even three wives) ....most common people are monogamous and believe in strict family values (even if some men do stray around a bit sometimes).   The divorce rate in India even today is about 1.3%. 

So...IMO all these sex related books and temple carvings don't make any difference to family values....if these values are inculcated the right way.  As children we have seen many temple carvings with women showing their bosom. Even many goddesses are bare bodied. We have never thought of them as wrong or bad.

The female bosom always represented motherhood to us....somehow.

Well the liberal attitudes were gone a long time ago, mostly by the 15th century. Bosoms are now rarely seen in public where, even 50 years ago, breastfeeding in public was not an issue. These days India and really all of the East can only be described as repressed and more puritanical than the West.

I am not sure about being 'liberal'.  'Liberal' in the modern context means letting everyone live as they please. Most people today have no definite ideology or clear idea of what is right and wrong in life.  Religion and spirituality have lost their authority and the safest way forward seems to be to let everyone live as they want as long as they don't harm someone else.

Who are we to judge?!  That is being 'liberal'.

India was never liberal in the above sense. Indians have always had a very clear idea of what life meant, what was right and wrong and what was expected of people.   There was no confusion in this.

Hinduism only had different norms for  different people.....which is like having different expectations from a two year old as compared to a 5 year old... and similarly from a ten year old as compared to a twenty year old. 

Just as we have different expectations from young and the old...from women and men.  We have different expectations from doctors and soldiers.....and from prostitutes and nuns.  From butchers and monks.....and so on.

No one is a sinner if he or she is performing their duty and lives in line with their nature. A prostitute having sex with many men was not a sinner condemned to hell or any such nonsense. However a household woman who has a good husband and family,  having a secret love affair was a sinner. A king using a prostitute was not a sinner...but a brahmin doing the same thing was a sinner. 

No one was condemned to hell for all eternity..of course. Everyone had to be born again to wok out their karma.  Its all about how the karmic energies accumulate in an individual.

In fact, even punishments were dependent on the person and his social level. If a low caste person receives one punishment for stealing, a vaishya (business class) would receive double the punishment, a kshtrya (warrior class) would receive three times...and a brahmin would receive four times the punishment...for the same crime.

Dharma is very complex and should always be seen in the context of the situation. Lying, stealing and murder are not always sins.  It depends on the intent, who does it and in what context.

[Hope]

Hinduism only had different norms for  different people.....which is like having different expectations from a two year old as compared to a 5 year old... and similarly from a ten year old as compared to a twenty year old. 

Except that those examples are not comparisons.  As you will agree we move from being a 2-year old to being a 5-year old to being a 10-year old to being a 20-year old over a period of time.  In other words we move from one norm to another to another.  The caste system in Hinduism doesn't permit that kind of progression. If you are born a Dalit, you are a Dalit for life; if you are born a Brahmin, you are a Brahmin for life.  Perhaps more importantly, if you are born a Dalit it isn't only you who are a Dalit for life; it's your children, their children and their children ad infinituum who remain Dalits for all time.  The same applies to Brahmins, Kshatriyas and every other caste grouping.

[Sriram]

Hinduism only had different norms for  different people.....which is like having different expectations from a two year old as compared to a 5 year old... and similarly from a ten year old as compared to a twenty year old. 

Except that those examples are not comparisons.  As you will agree we move from being a 2-year old to being a 5-year old to being a 10-year old to being a 20-year old over a period of time.  In other words we move from one norm to another to another.  The caste system in Hinduism doesn't permit that kind of progression. If you are born a Dalit, you are a Dalit for life; if you are born a Brahmin, you are a Brahmin for life.  Perhaps more importantly, if you are born a Dalit it isn't only you who are a Dalit for life; it's your children, their children and their children ad infinituum who remain Dalits for all time.  The same applies to Brahmins, Kshatriyas and every other caste grouping.

I have been accused of repeating myself many times....but if this is the situation, I perhaps need to do so more often! 

You don't have to agree with what is said...but the least that is expected is that you understand what is said.....especially if it is repeated again and again.

Oh well.....maybe some other time. 

[Hope]

You don't have to agree with what is said...but the least that is expected is that you understand what is said.....especially if it is repeated again and again.

Oh well.....maybe some other time. 

I fully understand what you are saying, and disagree with hat you are saying on the strength of the experiences of Indian and Nepalese (Hindu) nationals I worked alongside whilst in the sub-continent.  In fact, on a number of occasions, local people who were providing orientation training to ex-pts like myself stated - very clearly - that one should never compare the Hindu caste system with the Western class system; they were/are two totally different animals.

[Udayana]

In the far distant past probably the class and caste systems have similar origins, but they are not at all comparable now.

The caste system has been going around 3000, maybe 4000, years. The class system is something that developed during the advance of the west after the renaissance, mostly due to the industrial revolution.

"Dalit" is not even a "caste" in the original definition, which defined four "varnas" which made up society. Caste itself developed later, incorporating various tribal and other ethnic groups and "out-castes" (dalits).

At first it might have seemed obvious that a smiths son would be trained in his fathers craft and become a smith, or a priests son would be educated as priest - learning Vedas by heart, for instance, would need training from infancy. Each person is born to the family and life they choose or are destined to be born into and inherit the responsibilities and duties of their parents. The model can be more or less rigid according to outlook, circumstances and necessity.

Later, especially during Mogul and British regimes, the whole system becomes quite corrupt and unsupportable. The abstract model of how people are "supposed" to be is used to create division, inhibit progress and exploit people.

[Outrider]

As I have said....caste was a very important system that maintained social stability.  It was there in in some form in all societies around the world till universal schooling systems and professionally managed work places came into vogue. There was nothing wrong with the caste system in earlier centuries. It worked and people were happy in their respective positions. 

In much the same way that institutionalised racism and slavery were the foundation for the British Empire and helped social stability and the class system was the foundation of the industrial revolution and helped social stability.

Social stability isn't a good thing if it's enshrining the disenfranchisement of a particular group. Individual liberty is lost at the expense of social stability.

But regardless...we are a very proud and happy people and we have weathered many a storm. Nothing is going to stop India and its people any more.  It'll take a few more decades...but we'll get there.   

Great, happy for you. You have an immense amount to be proud of, but that doesn't mean you can gloss over or forget about the things that haven't been done well - all nations have elements that try to do this, Britain is no exception.

O.

[Harrowby Hall]

Caste and caste associated behaviour is alive and well and living in the Indian diaspora.

A British Indian couple deliberately imported a servant from India. The imported woman appears to be a Christian not a Hindu.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34330986

A woman recruited from India to be a domestic servant for a family in the UK and paid 11p an hour has been awarded almost £184,000 in unpaid wages.
Permila Tirkey, 39, was discriminated against because of her "low caste", her lawyers said, describing it as the first successful case of its kind.
She worked 18-hour days, having been recruited because her employers wanted someone "servile", a tribunal heard.
.......
The hearing, in Cambridge, was told Ms Tirkey worked for Pooja and Ajay Chandhok in Milton Keynes for four and a half years, during which time:
   She worked an 18-hour day, seven days a week
   She slept on a foam mattress on the floor
   She was prevented from bringing her Bible to the UK and going to church
   Her passport was held by the Chandhoks and she had no access to it
   She was not allowed to call her family
   She was given second-hand clothing instead of choosing her own clothes
........
The tribunal heard Ms Tirkey was recruited from Bihar in eastern India in 2008 because her employers wanted "someone who would be not merely of service but servile, who would not be aware of United Kingdom employment rights".
It concluded Ms Tirkey, who could not speak English, was considered "ideal" by the family because of her position as a member of the Adivasi caste, described as the lowest class in the "caste pyramid". She described herself as being from the "servant class".
The tribunal found "the claimant was acceptable to the respondents as their domestic servant, not because of her skills but because she was, by birth, by virtue of her inherited position in society, and by virtue of her upbringing... a person whose expectations in life were no higher than to be a domestic servant".
No-one based in the UK would have accepted the conditions of work, it concluded.